KONDAPALLI AYYANNA Vs. VENKA BHADRAIAH MINOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order of one of us and the late Ramachandra Rao J., holding that the petitioners were not the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondents in A. S. No. 436 of 1956, that the second appellant therein, i.e., the present respondent was the sole representative of the deceased 1st appellant by reason of the will bequeathing all her properties to him and that the interests of the sole respondent in the appeal vested in the 2nd appellant.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these : One Mokhamatla Venkanna, a rich landlord of Akutlgappandu, a village in the West Godavari District died intestate on 8-12-1952 leaving behind him two widows Kondamma and Venkata Lakshmi Devi. Kondamma, the senior widow, adopted one Bhadrayya, her brothers sons son on 7/03/1953. Questioning the factum and the validity of this adoption, the junior widow Venkta Lakshmi Devi filed O. S. No. 31 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, for division of the properties of her husband into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to her and for consequential reliefs. To the said suit were impleaded the senior widow and the adopted son as defendants 1 and 2 respectively.

(3.) AFTER the disposal of the suit but before the presentation of the appeal, the 1st appellant once again made an adoption of the 2nd appellant (2nd defendant) and executed a registered deed of adoption in respect thereof. During the pendency of the appeal, Venkata Lakshmi Devi was murdered on 23/06/1957. Two persons by name Kondappalli Ayyanna, the brother of the deceased respondent, and Makthamatla Satyanarayana, the natural brother of the deceased Venkanna, applied to be brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, who will hereafter be referred to as petitioners, claiming to be the donees under the gift deed (Ex. A-2) said to have been executed by Venkata. Lakshmi Devi sometime before her death. This application was opposed by the two appellants on the ground that the document relied upon was a spurious one. As the genuineness of the document was contested, this Court directed an enquiry by the Subordinate Judge into the truth of the said gift-deed.